Philosopher: People are not intellectually well suited to live in larg

Question

Philosopher: People are not intellectually well suited to live in large, bureaucratic societies. Therefore, people can find happiness, if at all, only in smaller political units such as villages.

The reasoning in the philosopher’s argument is flawed because the argument takes for granted that

(A) no one can ever be happy living in a society in which she or he is not intellectually well suited to live

(B) the primary purpose of small political units such as villages is to make people happy

(C) all societies that are plagued by excessive bureaucracy are large

(D) anyone who lives in a village or other small political unit that is not excessively bureaucratic can find happiness

(E) everyone is willing to live in villages or other small political units

DAVEexamPAL · Answer

the answer is A

We can find it easily by breaking down the argument logically: 
Since people aren't intellectually well suited to live in cities, they must live elsewhere to be happy. This clearly assumes that being intellectually well suited and being happy are somehow equivalent, or at least that one leads to the other, such as (A) no one can ever be happy living in a society in which she or he is not intellectually well suited to live.

As always, another (less efficient) way to solve is by process of elimination: 
(A) no one can ever be happy living in a society in which she or he is not intellectually well suited to live. -  right, if this were the case then indeed it would follow that to be happy you must live out of the city. this is indeed assumed.

(B) the primary purpose of small political units such as villages is to make people happy  not necessary - this doesn't have to be the intent in order for it to be the effect

(C) all societies that are plagued by excessive bureaucracy are large  not quite - it seems that the opposite is assumed : all large societies are bureaucratic. it's perfectly possible that some small societies are also bureaucratic, but this still doesn't negate the claim that only small communities can lead to happiness.

(D) anyone who lives in a village or other small political unit that is not excessively bureaucratic can find happiness   no - first od all, this is not assumed, it is close to what is argued. second, the argument in't necessarily about everyone

(E) everyone is willing to live in villages or other small political units  nope, irrelevant - people may not be willing, the argument is merely that if they want to be happy, they should

Samé · Answer

The good options here are A and D. D is incorrect because it states the opposite of the conclusion of the argument. 
Correct answer A

catcun · Answer

egmat  doesn't the first option have super strong language?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Premise:  People are not intellectually well suited to live in large, bureaucratic societies.

Conclusion:  Therefore, people can find happiness, if at all, only in smaller political units such as villages.

The reasoning jumps from  “not suited to large bureaucratic societies”  to  “happiness only possible in small units.”

The philosopher assumes that:

Large societies are necessarily bureaucratic. 
 Small political units are never bureaucratic. 
 If you’re not suited for X, then you can’t be happy in X. 
 Happiness is possible only in the kind of society you are suited for.

The main hidden premise:  If you are not intellectually well suited to a type of society, you cannot be happy in it.

Only  option (A)  stands out.

Answer: A

egmat · Answer

The philosopher says:
 
 People aren't well-suited for large bureaucracies 
 Therefore, they can  only  find happiness in small villages  
The jump: "not good at X" → "can ONLY be happy in Y"

You think option A sounds too extreme with phrases like "no one can ever."

But, a lot of students have the misconception that: "Extreme language = wrong answer"

This is true  sometimes , but not always.

Here's when it matters: 
 
 Extreme language is BAD in: Strengthen, Weaken, Inference questions  
 
  Extreme language is GOOD in: Assumption questions  when the argument itself is extreme

You stopped here:  "This sounds too strong → must be wrong"
 You needed to check:  "Is the argument's conclusion also extreme?"

Why A is Correct
 Look at what the philosopher concludes: people can find happiness " only " in villages
That's extreme! The philosopher is saying it's  impossible  to be happy in places where you're not well-suited.

Option A says exactly this: " no one can ever  be happy" where they're not well-suited.

Simple test - flip it:  What if some people CAN be happy even where they're not well-suited?
Then the whole argument falls apart. The philosopher needs this extreme assumption.

The Key Takeaway
 When the argument makes an extreme claim, the correct answer will  match that extreme .
Think of it like this: If someone says "I can  only  pass this test by studying 10 hours," they're assuming "anything less = guaranteed failure." That assumption is just as extreme as their claim.

Don't reject strong language automatically. Ask: "Does the argument's conclusion require something this strong?" Here it does.

Philosopher: People are not intellectually well suited to live in larg

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Philosopher: People are not intellectually well suited to live in larg

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards